LANCE J. THIBIDEAU, PETITIONER,
v.
THE ESTATE OF LESLIE BLANE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A motion to disqualify a judge cannot be granted in part; it must be granted entirely or denied entirely.
The trial court removed the petitioner as personal representative due to his status as a disbarred attorney and convicted felon. Petitioner moved to d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Disqualification Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court discharged the petitioner as the personal representative of an estate after discovering that he was a disbarred attorney and convicted felon. Convicted felons are not legally qualified to act as personal representatives. § 733.303(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). The court also issued an order for petitioner to show cause why he had not committed a fraud, and indicated that it had no faith in petitioner’s Credibility-
Petitioner then moved to disqualify the court and the court granted the motion in part, disqualifying itself only from the proceeding on the order to show cause. Petitioner argues that the court should have granted the motion as to the entire proceeding.
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(f) provides that if a motion for disqualification is legally sufficient, it must be granted and the judge shall “proceed no further in the action.” S. Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 840 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(judge who granted motion for disqualification as to the case could not subsequently preside over a hearing on sanctions against counsel).
We construe the rule to mean that when the motion seeks to disqualify the judge from the entire case, it cannot be granted in part, as was done in this case. Even if the rule did not preclude a partial granting of this motion, we would still be required to grant relief because petitioner’s involvement in this case will not end with his removal as personal representative and the ruling on whether he perpetrated a fraud on the court. Petitioner, while he was personal representative, distributed assets, and these distributions are being questioned. In addition, petitioner is a beneficiary of the estate.
We therefore grant the petitions.
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schrack v. State, 958 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…unsel never objected to the trial court’s ruling as incomplete. We disagree with the State. A trial court order that does not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order that does. See Barber v. State, 851 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Currelly v. State, 801 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Gomez v. State, 948 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (affirming summary denial of defendant’s rule 3.850 motion, but reversing with respect to supplemental motion— whic…
Authorities Cited
- S. Coatings, Inc. v. The City OF Tamarac, 840 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)